If homeopathy were half as effective as you are suggesting it should be easy to demonstrate in a controlled trial. But controlled trials are negative. So homeopathy does not work beyond a placebo effect.

Farmers here report their vet bills were cut by 2/3 when they went to homeopathic treatments for mastitis and other infectious conditions.

I’m sorry, but as a scientist I believe what works, and homeopathy works with children and animals neither of whom are influenced by the placebo effect.

The reasons placebos were given for pain –
a) sometimes they worked (the patients felt better)
b) they reduced the chance of a person becoming addicted to pain meds
c) fewer side effects.

Since pain meds are always given for temporary relief of symptoms, if a placebo makes the patient feel better, then it has done the job required. The reduction of patients becoming drug addicts was considered a worthwhile endeavor. I’m imaging it still could be considered so.

I hadn’t watched the show before– I’m not going to start.

This is meaningless to the point of being untrue. Treatments that work for a given indication also benefit from the placebo effect (to the limited extent that helps), but also have “real” effects. Not to mention that I know of no indication for which placebo is a reasonable choice, given that placebo effects are small and temporary. Things that fall in this category of minor and temporary usually require no treatment at all.

“Although it’s good to ask about anything that sounds strange, as a patient you’re fooling yourself if you think you can sift the evidence yourself. The medical literature is complicated.”

You can actually do it on a single medical condition, maybe two, but that’s about it, And only if you’re prepared to put in the time and effort.

My father died with prostate cancer and I was advised to have a PSA. Before doing so, I happened to come across an article about PSA testing that sent me off on a year long investigation of the issue (on and off, of course). As a result I didn’t have the test and nearly every study since then has affirmed that my decision was correct.

But I think what you’re saying is that most people do not have the time, can’t be bothered to expend the effort, don’t know how to sift wheat form chaff etc etc, and I would agree.

“Used to be I could trust the “MD.” Now that I can’t, I’m pissed off and worried.”

Part of my decision was based on discussions I’ve had on forums. I was quite surprised when an MD on one of these forums who agreed with my assessments said that he tests all males over 50 despite the evidence against this procedure. His reason was that he would be liable to be sued if he did not test someone who later developed prostate cancer – despite the fact that tested indviduals barely have an increased survival but a whole lot more pathology from biopsies, and surgery or radiation. He is quite certain that he would never be sued for actually doing a PSA and he’s probably right.

Evidence-based medicine can work if studies are properly designed. However, with any study there are implicit and explicit assumptions which may render the study useless. A good example are dietary studies which used “validated” food questionnaires. The ones I’ve completed bear no resemblance to what I eat. If that’s also true for a significant number of study participants, the study is based upon very flawed information as the foundation. Any results that come from that study are imprecise. A lot of the nutritional studies I’ve seen do not consider the intake of easily digested carbohydrates as a significant factor.

Being a pharmacist for over 30 years has taught me that most of the time, there are no definite answers, and that researchers have an amazing ability to get the answer they want.

I also think we need to spend more time encouraging people, especially at a young age, to ask questions and understand their medical advice and condition.

Although it’s good to ask about anything that sounds strange, as a patient you’re fooling yourself if you think you can sift the evidence yourself. The medical literature is complicated.

As a patient, I just want a signifier that will allow me to sort the science based from the woo friendly before I walk in the door. Used to be I could trust the “MD.” Now that I can’t, I’m pissed off and worried.

We have a Federal institution promoting CAM called “NCCAM.” The body of doctors that advises congress is called the “Institute of Medicine.” The IOM wrote a report in 2005 recommending that med students be trained in “integrative medicine,” and so it is.

The AMA had a rule that good doctors were not to refer patients to quacks. But the chiropractors sued for trade infringement and the Scientologists helped them out by planting spies at the AMA headquarters to dig dirt and make the AMA look bad (Google “operation sore throat”). The AMA lost their case on appeal around 1990 I think. Subsequently they don’t sort quackery from real medicine.

I haven’t looked but it wouldn’t surprise me to find the AMA itself promoting homeopathy. The APA has a whole sub-section for that sort of thing here: http://apacaim.org

IN my opinion, it is breaking a public trust to use your MD to promote questionable or outright fraudulent medical advise.
I also think we need to spend more time encouraging people, especially at a young age, to ask questions and understand their medical advice and condition.
Once people get in the habit of questioning a doctor, they begin to take responsibility for their own health. And I think it might lead to more skeptical receptions of Dr. Oz and the woo.